I am just curious how you they are able to prove something which occurred 27 to 48 years ago? I would be genuinely interested to know the process. Presumably it is circumstantial stuff like being able to prove they were in the same place mixed with witness evidence as presumably the likelihood of actual physical evidence is very slight.

I've thought about that as well, surely it just comes down to he said/she said?

I understand with the Savile one it was the case that he had an intimate identifying mark which was used to weed out those who were true from those who may not have been true but I would imagine it is very, very difficult to prove the case without such a ting. Then again i am no expert in the matter and those who have actually been charged rather than just questioned must have had sufficient evidence for the CPS to feel there was a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution (not of course that such things have been proven wrong in the past). It is a very difficult situation.

I am just curious how you they are able to prove something which occurred 27 to 48 years ago? I would be genuinely interested to know the process. Presumably it is circumstantial stuff like being able to prove they were in the same place mixed with witness evidence as presumably the likelihood of actual physical evidence is very slight.

I've thought about that as well, surely it just comes down to he said/she said?

I understand with the Savile one it was the case that he had an intimate identifying mark which was used to weed out those who were true from those who may not have been true but I would imagine it is very, very difficult to prove the case without such a ting. Then again i am no expert in the matter and those who have actually been charged rather than just questioned must have had sufficient evidence for the CPS to feel there was a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution (not of course that such things have been proven wrong in the past). It is a very difficult situation and in some cases there incident in question appears top involve a sexual assault charge from a grope (which I believe the Dave Lee Travis incident allegedly was). I am not demeaning the effect this has but sadly in the 70's when the incidents apparently happened this was seen as an acceptable thing and I have spoken to a couple of women who have informed their bosses used to pretty much chase them around the desks when they were working in the 70's. Luckily we are in more enlightened times now.

Well you say 'enlightened times', but you gotta be careful these days with how you act, what you say and how you interact with people or before you know it you're in the bosses office accused of all manner of things

Going back to Clifford...I think 27/48 years ago is pushing it really, I mean seriously, who cares?. Its just funny how all this comes out now as if its a good time to make some money out of it.

Well you say 'enlightened times', but you gotta be careful these days with how you act, what you say and how you interact with people or before you know it you're in the bosses office accused of all manner of things

Oh Phubbs, what is it you've been accused of?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Going back to Clifford...I think 27/48 years ago is pushing it really, I mean seriously, who cares?.

The victims? Their families? The general public? I can only speak for myself, but I think it's a Very Good Thing if a guilty figure is brought to task, irregardless of how long it's been since the crime was committed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs Its just funny how all this comes out now as if its a good time to make some money out of it.

That seems like quite a cynical attitude really. I've never been in the position of a sexual abuse victim, so can't really begin to understand how something like that makes you feel. Perhaps it's only now that they feel as though it's safe to come forward? Or they've only just mustered up the courage to speak up, in the wake of other high profile incidents of similar accusations?

That is where it is difficult. It is a question of what actually is alleged to have occurred and if force or coercion was used. That sort of thing can leave mental scars of long lasting nature. I seem to remember it was just recently a choir master was found guilty of abuse thirty or so years ago (which sadly resulted in the person who was abused committing suicide shortly after giving evidence). Abuse is a terrible thing which can seriously damage a person. From that case it does appear to be a case of proving the person had contact with the accuser mixed with evidence of opportunity and then it comes down to how reliable and believable the evidence given by the person making the accusation is. It appears to be a very hit and miss thing which presumably is like Russian roulette and depends on the makeup of the jury as one jury may give one verdict on the evidence and change a couple of people and they dynamic alters and it could be a completely different verdict.

Not been accused of anything just pointing out the accusation happy society we live in these days.

27-48 years ago!!!! nah.

Accusation happy society? You don't think that if someone feels they're a victim of a crime they should be able to come forward to have the matter investigated?

You think that a victim of a sexual assault will just forget about it over time and just shrug it off?

I'm as cynical as anyone, but this is just a fucking horrible attitude to have. Sadly it's one that isn't uncommon, I am seeing it more and more on Twitter and such. Even fucking Alan Sugar was beating this drum last week. Fuckwits that seem to roll out this kind of argument always seem to sign it off with a 'if they're guilty I hope they rot' style comment, but how the fuck can we identify them as guilty if a victim doesn't come forward and an investigation is not carried out? Do I think those accused should be named in public to face judgement by the press and the fuckwitted Facebook loving public? No, the accused should have some form of anonymity until proven guilty. The public at large are a depressing, braindead bunch when it comes to stuff like this, seemingly getting high on their self righteousness by posting endless 'Like if you think this paedo should die' pictures all over the fucking shop. Boils my piss.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

I deal with the public a lot in my job, people tend to jump to all manner of accusations all the time, interacting with someone the wrong way can result in assault claims and yes London is a bubbling cauldron of problems.

To play devils advocate a conviction is still pending and the actual details are not available as to what the charges fully relate to. We have to be careful not to fall into the baying mob mentality of being charged automatically means guilt. That said no matter the amount of time which has passed if a crime has been committed i am quite glad that people are still charged. hopefully this will make people who have committed a crime a long time ago feel less safe and also make others think twice before committing such a crime.

To play devils advocate a conviction is still pending and the actual details are not available as to what the charges fully relate to. We have to be careful not to fall into the baying mob mentality of being charged automatically means guilt. That said no matter the amount of time which has passed if a crime has been committed i am quite glad that people are still charged. hopefully this will make people who have committed a crime a long time ago feel less safe and also make others think twice before committing such a crime.

I just don't see how anyone can claim/prove something from up to 48 years ago, if it was murder then yes of course, but this is purely on word of mouth. The person making the claim could get a close friend to claim they saw it or was present at the time etc...it just seems to me its down to whoever can come up with the better stories and get the jury on their side.

To play devils advocate a conviction is still pending and the actual details are not available as to what the charges fully relate to. We have to be careful not to fall into the baying mob mentality of being charged automatically means guilt. That said no matter the amount of time which has passed if a crime has been committed i am quite glad that people are still charged. hopefully this will make people who have committed a crime a long time ago feel less safe and also make others think twice before committing such a crime.

I just don't see how anyone can claim/prove something from up to 48 years ago, if it was murder then yes of course, but this is purely on word of mouth. The person making the claim could get a close friend to claim they saw it or was present at the time etc...it just seems to me its down to whoever can come up with the better stories and get the jury on their side.

It can be done and it has been done before. It is a difficult thing to do though and if someone did commit a crime such as mentioned there should not be the safety of time to prevent a prosecution from taking place. If there is the evidence then all well and good but it must a difficult thing to prove. At the same time , sadly with the jury system it is always the case of who can tell a better story and get the jury on their side with many cases where members of juries will bring their own bias and hatred to a case and ignore the evidence presented. This probably happens every day in Britain.

To play devils advocate a conviction is still pending and the actual details are not available as to what the charges fully relate to. We have to be careful not to fall into the baying mob mentality of being charged automatically means guilt. That said no matter the amount of time which has passed if a crime has been committed i am quite glad that people are still charged. hopefully this will make people who have committed a crime a long time ago feel less safe and also make others think twice before committing such a crime.

I just don't see how anyone can claim/prove something from up to 48 years ago, if it was murder then yes of course, but this is purely on word of mouth. The person making the claim could get a close friend to claim they saw it or was present at the time etc...it just seems to me its down to whoever can come up with the better stories and get the jury on their side.

I don't think anyone has any illusions on how difficult something like this is to prove, given the time that has passed. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated. We don't know what the facts are or what evidence has been gathered. If there is sufficient evidence to proceed, we should expect and hope that the investigation will run it's course and a jury will reach a decision based upon that evidence (guilty verdict or not). If there is none, I am sure the process will not reach that conclusion and the investigation would end. In the case of Clifford, I suspect they're must be some kind of strong evidence given they've chosen to actually file charges. How strong that evidence is I dunno, the jury will have to reach a decision based on it, and again, surely that's all we can ask for in any case of this sort. Regardless of time passed, if someone that feels they're the victim of a crime they have every right to report that alleged crime and to expect it to be investigated appropriately.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

To play devils advocate a conviction is still pending and the actual details are not available as to what the charges fully relate to. We have to be careful not to fall into the baying mob mentality of being charged automatically means guilt. That said no matter the amount of time which has passed if a crime has been committed i am quite glad that people are still charged. hopefully this will make people who have committed a crime a long time ago feel less safe and also make others think twice before committing such a crime.

I just don't see how anyone can claim/prove something from up to 48 years ago, if it was murder then yes of course, but this is purely on word of mouth. The person making the claim could get a close friend to claim they saw it or was present at the time etc...it just seems to me its down to whoever can come up with the better stories and get the jury on their side.

Yep I agree on all those points. I just find it hard to think what kind of evidence the police could have in a case like this which occurred 48 years ago and is (or seems to be) word of mouth (seeing as they have filed charges). Guess we'll see soon enough.